I volunteered as a scrutineer at the advance polls. The elections staff were professional. We need to amplify stories of how democratic institutions are working.
Jared, I am grateful for your thoughtful and elegant expression of the continuing work ahead. Amid all the noise and tumult and contention, I appreciate this reminder. Thank you.
Well said. Here’s hoping the next Parliament will not be as acrimonious as the last one. In these tough times it is important for all Canadians, including our elected representatives, to pull together.
Thank you Jared Wesley for your excellent post! I wish all Canadians--particularly politicians--could read it as a guideline to maintain Canada's global reputation as a kinder, decent democracy. Decency is the point. IMO Mark Carney is more than capable of leading Canada with dignity and expertise. If I may, this Youtube interview captures the essence of his economic skills, his intellectual capacity, and interpersonal skills that would strengthen and sustain our global reputation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxLBOAbrJY
All parties should commit to electoral reform (and actually follow through with it) if they win. A proportional representation or rank-choice voting system would do a much better job of fostering the kind of self-reflection and collaboration that you rightly encourage here. But unfortunately the way the system is structured tilts toward division.
I disagree. The described electoral reform will just shift the impact of election results to reveal different stress points. "Different" is not the same as "better." Instead of electoral reform, we probably just need more voter participation and communication with parliament between elections and better performance among MPs in fairly representing and responding to the needs of all individual Canadians.
What stress points do you believe would arise in either of the proposed systems?
Also, how would one enforce better representation of constituents interests by MPs, instead of the interests of their parties? Or how do we actually increase voter participation?
Neither proportional representation nor rank-choice voting, which could place more members of minority parties in parliament, would necessarily make voters feel (or be) better represented. For example, in this election, I voted for the incumbent candidate in my riding, even though I do not subscribe to the party leader's drivel or the general direction of party messaging. Why? Because I appreciate this particular candidate's past efforts (demonstrated by their participation, actions and messaging) and I have come to trust their instincts. Were this specific candidate not running, their party would have to come up with a super-phenomenal replacement to retain my vote because, otherwise, I would definitely vote for a different party, maybe even regardless of their candidate in my riding, because I appreciate their general platform, objectives, and the skill sets demonstrated by past and current members of the party. I do not want my choice diluted or altered. If there was a ranked ballot, I would have to vote the incumbent #1 and the other party candidate #2 with all other candidates, in my opinion, meriting a zero. It simply cannot be assumed that all persons running are equally worthy of election., or that all parties running deserve a piece of the pie. I may have over-simplified the voting reform stance but that is part of the problem with the proposed changes.
I might be misunderstanding how each of these works (and I'm sure there's some nuance with how they could be implemented), but having read a bit about each of the rank-choice voting and mixed-member proportional representation models, I would propose it be implemented as such:
Two ballots for each voter:
First ballot - MP election (local riding vote) - ranked choice vote option. Voters would have the option of ranking as many or few as they would like, in order of preference.
Second ballot - party vote - total share of party votes determines number of seats each party has in legislature. MPs seats wouldn't be removed, but rather, if adjustments were needed to ensure fairness/proportionality, seats would be added (with a cap, like New Zealand, of something like 5% overall growth of Parliament so things don't get out of hand).
This would ensure that each voter's voice is heard locally, distributing power more equally, and it would encourage candidates and parties to increase their dialogue and collaboration across the aisle (hopefully reducing partisanship).
I would also be curious if, in a system like this, candidates would feel more free to vote against their own party on an issue-by-issue basis. Consensus/majority would be thus harder to achieve, but perhaps once achieved be more representational of the actual "will of the people."
It would also mean that, instead of us voters having to sign off an entire party, we could perhaps be more directly represented in our views on particular issues. As an issues-based voter/citizen, I find it extremely challenging that my options to be represented come in these "party packages" where I essentially have to sign off on a party's stance on all issues I care about. This is immensely frustrating, especially when issues are complex and often require nuanced responses. Our current system covers over nuance and amplifies the loudest voices with the clearest messaging, which are often the most extreme and polarizing voices with the least helpful stances on a given issue.
It's possible that I have rose-coloured glasses when it comes to electoral reform, but I have to think that the above proposed system would have fewer downsides than our current system.
Well written! I only hope that all parties, and their voters, accept the result and try to work together for the future. We are in perilous times and it will take hard work to move forward. I pray that party leaders tone down the rhetoric.
I volunteered as a scrutineer at the advance polls. The elections staff were professional. We need to amplify stories of how democratic institutions are working.
Jared, I am grateful for your thoughtful and elegant expression of the continuing work ahead. Amid all the noise and tumult and contention, I appreciate this reminder. Thank you.
Well said. Here’s hoping the next Parliament will not be as acrimonious as the last one. In these tough times it is important for all Canadians, including our elected representatives, to pull together.
Thank you Jared Wesley for your excellent post! I wish all Canadians--particularly politicians--could read it as a guideline to maintain Canada's global reputation as a kinder, decent democracy. Decency is the point. IMO Mark Carney is more than capable of leading Canada with dignity and expertise. If I may, this Youtube interview captures the essence of his economic skills, his intellectual capacity, and interpersonal skills that would strengthen and sustain our global reputation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxLBOAbrJY
All parties should commit to electoral reform (and actually follow through with it) if they win. A proportional representation or rank-choice voting system would do a much better job of fostering the kind of self-reflection and collaboration that you rightly encourage here. But unfortunately the way the system is structured tilts toward division.
I disagree. The described electoral reform will just shift the impact of election results to reveal different stress points. "Different" is not the same as "better." Instead of electoral reform, we probably just need more voter participation and communication with parliament between elections and better performance among MPs in fairly representing and responding to the needs of all individual Canadians.
What stress points do you believe would arise in either of the proposed systems?
Also, how would one enforce better representation of constituents interests by MPs, instead of the interests of their parties? Or how do we actually increase voter participation?
My lengthy partial reply somehow showed up as a separate comment above.
Your writing inspires me and this is a wonderful piece.
Neither proportional representation nor rank-choice voting, which could place more members of minority parties in parliament, would necessarily make voters feel (or be) better represented. For example, in this election, I voted for the incumbent candidate in my riding, even though I do not subscribe to the party leader's drivel or the general direction of party messaging. Why? Because I appreciate this particular candidate's past efforts (demonstrated by their participation, actions and messaging) and I have come to trust their instincts. Were this specific candidate not running, their party would have to come up with a super-phenomenal replacement to retain my vote because, otherwise, I would definitely vote for a different party, maybe even regardless of their candidate in my riding, because I appreciate their general platform, objectives, and the skill sets demonstrated by past and current members of the party. I do not want my choice diluted or altered. If there was a ranked ballot, I would have to vote the incumbent #1 and the other party candidate #2 with all other candidates, in my opinion, meriting a zero. It simply cannot be assumed that all persons running are equally worthy of election., or that all parties running deserve a piece of the pie. I may have over-simplified the voting reform stance but that is part of the problem with the proposed changes.
I might be misunderstanding how each of these works (and I'm sure there's some nuance with how they could be implemented), but having read a bit about each of the rank-choice voting and mixed-member proportional representation models, I would propose it be implemented as such:
Two ballots for each voter:
First ballot - MP election (local riding vote) - ranked choice vote option. Voters would have the option of ranking as many or few as they would like, in order of preference.
Second ballot - party vote - total share of party votes determines number of seats each party has in legislature. MPs seats wouldn't be removed, but rather, if adjustments were needed to ensure fairness/proportionality, seats would be added (with a cap, like New Zealand, of something like 5% overall growth of Parliament so things don't get out of hand).
This would ensure that each voter's voice is heard locally, distributing power more equally, and it would encourage candidates and parties to increase their dialogue and collaboration across the aisle (hopefully reducing partisanship).
I would also be curious if, in a system like this, candidates would feel more free to vote against their own party on an issue-by-issue basis. Consensus/majority would be thus harder to achieve, but perhaps once achieved be more representational of the actual "will of the people."
It would also mean that, instead of us voters having to sign off an entire party, we could perhaps be more directly represented in our views on particular issues. As an issues-based voter/citizen, I find it extremely challenging that my options to be represented come in these "party packages" where I essentially have to sign off on a party's stance on all issues I care about. This is immensely frustrating, especially when issues are complex and often require nuanced responses. Our current system covers over nuance and amplifies the loudest voices with the clearest messaging, which are often the most extreme and polarizing voices with the least helpful stances on a given issue.
It's possible that I have rose-coloured glasses when it comes to electoral reform, but I have to think that the above proposed system would have fewer downsides than our current system.
Well written! I only hope that all parties, and their voters, accept the result and try to work together for the future. We are in perilous times and it will take hard work to move forward. I pray that party leaders tone down the rhetoric.
What a great reminder...thank you!!
Thank you for this elegant essay.
It only seems a shame that it needed to be written at all. But undeniably common sense is in short supply, and magnified nefariousness runs rampant.